The case for the Plaintiffs, briefly, is that from time beyond human memory, there has been an ancient "ekpe" trench that lies between the Plaintiffs' town of Osina and the Defendants of Akokwa town. This trench was constructed by the joint effort of the ancestors of both communities and demarcated the land boundary between the two towns. The "ekpe" trench is more particularly shown on the Plaintiffs' survey plan No.MG.326/ 76 which was tendered in evidence at the trial and marked Exhibit "A". The Plaintiffs and Defendants from time immemorial had accepted and respected the said "ekpe" trench as the boundary between their two towns.

TThe Defendants denied the Plaintiffs' claims and asserted that the "ekpe" trench shown on the Plaintiffs' survey plan which is the only "ekpe" trench on what the Defendants called "the land in dispute" did not constitute the boundary between Osina and Akokwa towns. They stated that the said "ekpe" trench laid well within the Defendants' "Uhu Ehihi Oke" land which they claimed was in dispute and that it was built by the Defendants' ancestors from time immemorial as their last line of defence. They claimed that the boundary between the Plaintiffs' Osina town and the Defendants' Akokwa "Ikpa" land was and had always been as shown verged brown in the Defendants' plan No. IM/GA.5349/77. They stated that at no time did they or their ancestors accept the "ekpe" trench as the boundary between Osina and Akokwa towns.

The Defendants referred repeatedly to what they called "the land in dispute" and stated that it is a portion of their land known as "Uhu Ehihi Oke." They claimed that the said "Uhu Ehihi Oke" land "in dispute" had from time immemorial been in their exclusive and undisturbed ownership and possession. They stated that the said boundary verged brown was from time immemorial demarcated by the Defendants with life trees and that both towns had always accepted the said trees as their correct boundary marks. The Defendants pleaded a number of Court cases which they claimed related to what they described as "the land in dispute" and relied on res judicata, numerous act of ownership and possession of "the land in dispute" and estoppel by record.

At the conclusion of hearing, the learned trial Judge, Johnson J. after what looked like a full scale declaration of title to land claim by the Plaintiffs dismissed the suit.

Dissatisfied with this decision of the trial Court, the Plaintiffs lodged an appeal against the same to the Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt Division which Court in a unanimous decision on the 5th day of November, 1996 allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and orders of the trial Court delivered on the 16th January, 1985. The Court of Appeal further directed that in order to do substantial justice to both parties in the suit, it was desirable that the suit be tried de novo before another Judge of the Imo State High Court of Justice, Orlu Judicial Division other than Johnson, J. The Court of Appeal further ordered that the new trial Judge must, and should visit the locus in quo in order to have a thorough appraisal of what is actually in dispute between the parties once and for all.

Aggrieved by this decision of the Court of Appeal, both parties have now appealed to this Court.